Abstract [en]

Our purpose with this study is to investigate the controversy that are generated when construction of wind power are planned on the Swedish west coast. This purpose includes questions about the arguments and the actors involved, and what shapes an actor’s opinions.

The reason why we chose this area were because of a proposal we received from a consultant in the field. When we later on, studied the subject, we realized that there are several cases of conflicts surrounding various establishments of wind power that have taken place. We also found conflicts about those that are in the planning stage. In addition, we realized that there was not much current research in the area.

The study is based upon materials that have been collected in the form of articles, consolation reports, opinion pieces and four interviews. Interpretation of the material has been based on a discourse analysis which results in three different discourses in the controversy; The environmental discourse, the lay discourse and the economic discourse. The results and analysis show that the actors representing the opponents are mainly private individuals. Proponents are usually municipalities, companies and other actors wishing to establish wind power. The arguments presented by the opponents are more locally based, while proponents talk about public benefit and global interests. Opponents would generally not want to see any change in the living area because they see this as a valuable piece of nature. The same nature that the proponents instead consider to be beautiful even after wind plants has been built.

Our conclusions are that the controversy is divided into two major parties, for and against. We have not been able to identify those who are neutral about the subject. Proponents and opponents tend to point to an unwillingness to understand one another and an ongoing debate revolves around what kind of knowledge and arguments are considered to be legitimate. Böhler (1998) speaks if an untouched nature as a symbol of hope for the future. Within this, we find a paradox when the opponents are arguing for unspoiled nature, while they want to use it for recreation and to stay within it.